"... This paper reports on the development and formal certification (proof of semantic preservation) of a compiler from Cminor (a C-like imperative language) to PowerPC assembly code, using the Coq proof assistant both for programming the compiler and for proving its correctness. Such a certified compile ..."

This paper reports on the development and formal certification (proof of semantic preservation) of a compiler from Cminor (a C-like imperative language) to PowerPC assembly code, using the Coq proof assistant both for programming the compiler and for proving its correctness. Such a certified compiler is useful in the context of formal methods applied to the certification of critical software: the certification of the compiler guarantees that the safety properties proved on the source code hold for the executable compiled code as well.

...ssion on proofs of correctness for compilers. A great many on-paper proofs for program analyses and compiler transformations have been published – too many to survey here, but see Dave’s bibliography =-=[10]-=-. In the following, we restrict ourselves to discussing correctness proofs that involve on-machine verification. As is often the case in the area of machine-assisted proofs, Moore was one of the first...

"... This paper reports on the development and formal verification (proof of semantic preservation) of CompCert, a compiler from Clight (a large subset of the C programming language) to PowerPC assembly code, using the Coq proof assistant both for programming the compiler and for proving its correctness. ..."

This paper reports on the development and formal verification (proof of semantic preservation) of CompCert, a compiler from Clight (a large subset of the C programming language) to PowerPC assembly code, using the Coq proof assistant both for programming the compiler and for proving its correctness. Such a verified compiler is useful in the context of critical software and its formal verification: the verification of the compiler guarantees that the safety properties proved on the source code hold for the executable compiled code as well. 1.

...stack machine code) and mechanically verified in 1972 [17]. Since then, many other proofs have been conducted, ranging from single-pass compilers for toy languages to sophisticated code optimizations =-=[8]-=-. In the CompCert experiment, we carry this line of work all the way to end-to-end verification of a complete compilation chain from a structured imperative language down to assembly code through 8 in...

"... We introduce Jinja, a Java-like programming language with a formal semantics designed to exhibit core features of the Java language architecture. Jinja is a compromise between realism of the language and tractability and clarity of the formal semantics. The following aspects are formalised: a big an ..."

We introduce Jinja, a Java-like programming language with a formal semantics designed to exhibit core features of the Java language architecture. Jinja is a compromise between realism of the language and tractability and clarity of the formal semantics. The following aspects are formalised: a big and a small step operational semantics for Jinja and a proof of their equivalence; a type system and a definite initialisation analysis; a type safety proof of the small step semantics; a virtual machine (JVM), its operational semantics and its type system; a type safety proof for the JVM; a bytecode verifier, i.e. data flow analyser for the JVM; a correctness proof of the bytecode verifier w.r.t. the type system; a compiler and a proof that it preserves semantics and well-typedness. The emphasis of this work is not on particular language features but on providing a unified model of the source language, the virtual machine and the compiler. The whole development has been carried out in the theorem prover Isabelle/HOL.

"... This paper presents the formal verification of a compiler front-end that translates a subset of the C language into the Cminor intermediate language. The semantics of the source and target languages as well as the translation between them have been written in the specification language of the Coq pr ..."

This paper presents the formal verification of a compiler front-end that translates a subset of the C language into the Cminor intermediate language. The semantics of the source and target languages as well as the translation between them have been written in the specification language of the Coq proof assistant. The proof of observational semantic equivalence between the source and generated code has been machine-checked using Coq. An executable compiler was obtained by automatic extraction of executable Caml code from the Coq specification of the translator, combined with a certified compiler back-end generating PowerPC assembly code from Cminor, described in previous work.

...ive on-paper semantics for C [4, 9] and more recently for C# [3]. Many correctness proofs of program transformations have been published, both on paper and machine-checked using proof assistants; see =-=[2]-=- for a survey. A representative example is [5], where a non-optimizing byte-code compiler from a subset of Java to a subset of the Java Virtual Machine is verified using Isabelle/HOL. Most of these co...

We present parametric higher-order abstract syntax (PHOAS), a new approach to formalizing the syntax of programming languages in computer proof assistants based on type theory. Like higherorder abstract syntax (HOAS), PHOAS uses the meta language’s binding constructs to represent the object language’s binding constructs. Unlike HOAS, PHOAS types are definable in generalpurpose type theories that support traditional functional programming, like Coq’s Calculus of Inductive Constructions. We walk through how Coq can be used to develop certified, executable program transformations over several statically-typed functional programming languages formalized with PHOAS; that is, each transformation has a machine-checked proof of type preservation and semantic preservation. Our examples include CPS translation and closure conversion for simply-typed lambda calculus, CPS translation for System F, and translation from a language with ML-style pattern matching to a simpler language with no variable-arity binding constructs. By avoiding the syntactic hassle associated with first-order representation techniques, we achieve a very high degree of proof automation.

"... We present a verified compiler to an idealized assembly language from a small, untyped functional language with mutable references and exceptions. The compiler is programmed in the Coq proof assistant and has a proof of total correctness with respect to bigstep operational semantics for the source a ..."

We present a verified compiler to an idealized assembly language from a small, untyped functional language with mutable references and exceptions. The compiler is programmed in the Coq proof assistant and has a proof of total correctness with respect to bigstep operational semantics for the source and target languages. Compilation is staged and includes standard phases like translation to continuation-passing style and closure conversion, as well as a common subexpression elimination optimization. In this work, our focus has been on discovering and using techniques that make our proofs easy to engineer and maintain. While most programming language work with proof assistants uses very manual proof styles, all of our proofs are implemented as adaptive programs in Coq’s tactic language, making it possible to reuse proofs unchanged as new language features are added. In this paper, we focus especially on phases of compilation that rearrange the structure of syntax with nested variable binders. That aspect has been a key challenge area in past compiler verification projects, with much more effort expended in the statement and proof of binder-related lemmas than is found in standard penciland-paper proofs. We show how to exploit the representation technique of parametric higher-order abstract syntax to avoid the need to prove any of the usual lemmas about binder manipulation, often leading to proofs that are actually shorter than their pencil-andpaper analogues. Our strategy is based on a new approach to encoding operational semantics which delegates all concerns about substitution to the meta language, without using features incompatible with general-purpose type theories like Coq’s logic.

"... We define logical relations between the denotational semantics of a simply typed functional language with recursion and the operational behaviour of low-level programs in a variant SECD machine. The relations, which are defined using biorthogonality and stepindexing, capture what it means for a piec ..."

We define logical relations between the denotational semantics of a simply typed functional language with recursion and the operational behaviour of low-level programs in a variant SECD machine. The relations, which are defined using biorthogonality and stepindexing, capture what it means for a piece of low-level code to implement a mathematical, domain-theoretic function and are used to prove correctness of a simple compiler. The results have been formalized in the Coq proof assistant.

"... This paper presents a method for creating formally correct just-intime (JIT) compilers. The tractability of our approach is demonstrated through, what we believe is the first, verification of a JIT compiler with respect to a realistic semantics of self-modifying x86 machine code. Our semantics inclu ..."

This paper presents a method for creating formally correct just-intime (JIT) compilers. The tractability of our approach is demonstrated through, what we believe is the first, verification of a JIT compiler with respect to a realistic semantics of self-modifying x86 machine code. Our semantics includes a model of the instruction cache. Two versions of the verified JIT compiler are presented: one generates all of the machine code at once, the other one is incremental i.e. produces code on-demand. All proofs have been performed inside the HOL4 theorem prover.

...ode. From the point of view of compiler verification, this is a very simple and slightly unusual implementation to prove correct. Most papers on compiler verification, of which Dave has made a survey =-=[7]-=-, concentrate on proving a few optimising transformations correct. An impressive exception to this trend is Leroy’s recent proof a full end-to-end implementation of an optimising C compiler [13]. Anot...

"... We describe a semantic type soundness result, formalized in the Coq proof assistant, for a compiler from a simple functional language into an idealized assembly language. Types in the highlevel language are interpreted as binary relations, built using both second-order quantification and separation, ..."

We describe a semantic type soundness result, formalized in the Coq proof assistant, for a compiler from a simple functional language into an idealized assembly language. Types in the highlevel language are interpreted as binary relations, built using both second-order quantification and separation, over stores and values in the low-level machine. Categories and Subject Descriptors F.3.1 [Logics and meanings of programs]: Specifying and Verifying and Reasoning about

"... A verifying compiler is one that emits both object code and a proof of correspondence between object and source code. 1 We report the use of ACL2 in building a verifying compiler for µCryptol, a stream-based language for encryption algorithm specification that targets Rockwell Collins’ AAMP7 micropr ..."

A verifying compiler is one that emits both object code and a proof of correspondence between object and source code. 1 We report the use of ACL2 in building a verifying compiler for µCryptol, a stream-based language for encryption algorithm specification that targets Rockwell Collins’ AAMP7 microprocessor (and is designed to compile efficiently to hardware, too). This paper reports on our success in verifying the “core ” transformations of the compiler – those transformations over the sub-language of µCryptol that begin after “higher-order ” aspects of the language are compiled away, and finish just before hardware or software specific transformations are exercised. The core transformations are responsible for aggressive optimizations. We have written an ACL2 macro that automatically generates both the correspondence theorems and their proofs. The compiler also supplies measure functions that ACL2 uses to automatically prove termination of µCryptol programs, including programs with mutually-recursive cliques of streams. Our verifying compiler has proved the correctness of its core transformations for multiple algorithms, including TEA, RC6, and AES. Finally, we describe an ACL2 book of primitive operations for the general specification and verification of encryption algorithms. Categories and Subject Descriptors D.2.4 [Software Engineering]: Software/Program Verification—correctness proofs, formal methods, reliability; D.3.4 ∗ The ACL2 books associated with this paper can be retrieved at

...er output. The proofs for AES require approximately 15 minutes to build on typical hardware (a G4 Mac with 1 Gigabyte of RAM). 5. RELATED WORK Dave provides a recent overview of compiler verification =-=[4]-=-. Our work complements recent work by Leroy et. al. describing a verified compiler for a subset of C to PowerPC assembly code [14, 2]. The formal proofs are carried out using the Coq mechanical theore...